Ashly Anderson Porn

Full title: ASHLY RODRIGUEZ, and MADELLINE MELENDEZ, Plaintiffs, v. JUDA PARKS, and THE CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Date published: Mar 31, 2021

Facts

Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Melendez were trainees in the East Chicago Police Department’s officer training program. Defendant Parks was a sergeant in the Department and one of many Field Training Officers (FTO). Parks was Rodriguez’s assigned FTO, and a “stand-in” FTO for Melendez for approximately five days out of a four-month FTO phase.

Melendez alleges that the defendant asked her for nude photographs while she was inside a police car with him during her FTO program in 2018. (Melendez Dep. 20-21.)  She claims that after asking her for nude photographs, the defendant said “You owe me,” that he was in charge of her, and that he was the person who determined what goes on in her reviews. Melendez further alleges that the defendant then “said that he was going to ask me again, and do I want to send him nude pictures.” (Melendez Dep. 27-28.) Melendez claims that “After I didn’t say anything and wouldn’t give him any nude pictures, he began to try to embarrass me on calls and reprimand me in front of other officers and, ridicule me . . . And as far as teaching me during the FTO process, the amount of information he offered me dropped significantly.” (Melendez Dep. 33:13-20.)

Melendez further alleges that the defendant once commented that she did not have a butt in her uniform pants. (Melendez Dep. 30:6-9.) She also alleges that the defendant would grab her uniform pull her, put his arm around her, and tell her “come here” while she tried to keep her distance. (Melendez Dep. 29:8-10.) Melendez alleges that the defendant’s behavior was not limited to the days he was serving as her FTO. (Melendez Dep. 29:16.) Melendez claims that she had to hide from the defendant at work, and was afraid to come to work. (Melendez Dep. 29:22-25.)

Rodriguez also alleges that the defendant asked her for nude photographs during her FTO phase. She claims that she said nothing in response, because “[w]hat do you do when your sergeant and your FTO asks you for nude pictures and your job is on the line at that point?.. Because if I don’t give it to him, he could just write any reports and fire me.” (Rodriguez Dep. 13:1-9.) She claims that the defendant put his arm around her every time she punched the time clock and asked her what she saw in the mirror when she was naked. (Rodriguez Dep. 27:18-24.) Rodriguez claims that the defendant’s behavior has caused her heavy stress.

The plaintiffs filed suit against both defendant and the City of East Chicago. (DE # 1.) In Count I of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendant deprived them of their constitutional right to equal protection in violation of Section 1983 by sexually harassing them. (Id.) Defendant now seeks summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims. (DE # 42.) The plaintiffs filed a response (DE # 48), and the defendant filed no reply. The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for ruling.

Issue

Decision

the court DENIES the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (DE # 42.) The clerk is also ordered to TERMINATE the pending status of the defendant’s related exhibits (DE # 44), which were improperly filed as a “motion.” Further, the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as untimely is DENIED. (DE # 45.) The remaining motion for summary judgment (DE # 55) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT (and the clerk shall terminate its pending status) subject to ruling upon completion of briefing on the motion and related motions.

SO ORDERED.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 × three =